How does that work? How can a death ruling not be reversible if you're still alive? :huh:
I'm not arguing that he be rewarded any property lost or whatever, but an individual can not function in modern society without a valid social security number. Can't get a job, can't pay taxes even if he could, etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/judge-tells-living-man-that-he%E2%80%99s-still-legally-dead-201043615.html
QuoteJudge tells living man that he's still legally dead
Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo News October 9, 2013 4:10 PM The Sideshow
Life can be tough, especially when a judge says you're dead in the eyes of the law.
That's exactly what happened to Ohio resident Donald Eugene Miller Jr. on Monday when a judge upheld a 1994 court ruling declaring the 61-year-old legally dead.
The Courier reports that 19 years ago, a court in Hancock County declared Miller legally dead eight years after he disappeared from his rental home.
As a result, Miller has lost his Social Security number and his driver's license.
Judge Allan Davis called it a "strange, strange situation," but he also said the court cannot budge in its decision.
"We've got the obvious here," Davis said. "A man sitting in the courtroom, he appears to be in good health."
Each state can make its own laws regarding declaring someone legally dead. Most generally rely on a similar set of criteria: that someone is missing and presumed dead if they can't be located for at least seven years, the absence has been continuous and a genuine effort has been made to locate the person.
Miller said he is a recovering alcoholic and abandoned his rental home while in the throes of his addiction. He said he returned to the court as part of an effort to get his life back together.
"It kind of went further than I ever expected it to," Miller told the court. "I just kind of took off, ended up in different places."
Technically, Miller can petition to have his Social Security number reinstated in federal court, but his attorney, Francis Marley, told the Courier that Miller does not have the financial resources to pursue a second hearing.
"My client's here on a wing and a prayer today," Marley said.
His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
"I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," Davis said.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
Despite Miller's efforts to come clean with the court, Davis said there is a three-year legal limit for reversing a death ruling.
However, Miller said he wasn't even aware of his legal "death" until his parents told him about it when he finally returned to Ohio in 2005.
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 02:30:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
he deserves what he gets. Let him stay dead.
He may be a deadbeat, but his wife's a scam artist.
Quote
His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
They can both rot in hell.
:yes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2013, 02:36:12 AM
He may be a deadbeat, but his wife's a scam artist.
Quote
His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
They can both rot in hell.
Read a few articles, no evidence that I've seen that suggests she knew he was alive. In fact, she waited 8 years rather than the required 7 to have him declared dead.
The fact that he's just turned up alive is going to completely screw her over. She'd owe tens of thousands to the government if he was declared alive. I can understand not wanting that to happen.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2013, 02:36:12 AM
He may be a deadbeat, but his wife's a scam artist.
Quote
His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
They can both rot in hell.
Wow. That's what you got from that article? He disappeared. She waited MORE than the necessary time to declare him dead before applying for benefits for her children. And she refused to testify in court, probably because she has a vested interest in the outcome and didn't want to tip the scales.
It's tragic, however this plays out. He's clearly a mess, and she was trying to provide for her kids.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2013, 02:36:12 AM
He may be a deadbeat, but his wife's a scam artist.
Quote
His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
They can both rot in hell.
How so? Seems she acted in good faith.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 02:30:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.
At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.
Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:20:31 AM
It's tragic, however this plays out. He's clearly a mess, and she was trying to provide for her kids.
Of course you always assume the best motives for the woman :lol:
Clearly this guy was declared dead so that the people who had it done could benefit monetarily. Duh. How can anyone see it any other way?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 11, 2013, 08:33:23 AM
Clearly this guy was declared dead so that the people who had it done could benefit monetarily. Duh. How can anyone see it any other way?
Well, yes. When someone dissapears, it is necessary to determine what to do with his or her stuff. It is reasonable to give it to others if they can't be found. What else should happen with it?
You know how many people would like to be in his position? To disappear in the eyes of the law, no taxes, no credit, no goverment intervention, no ex wife looking for child support. What he needs is to learn to live off the land in some remote mountain be be happy the rest of his life.
:P
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 02:30:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.
At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.
Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.
Him losing property isn't the issue though. If he's dead then he legally doesn't exist and can't function in society. His SSN is invalid and he can't work, can't pay taxes, can't have financial interactions with banks, can't buy or rent property, can't have health care, can't sign up for any government programs, etc. How is that acceptable?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:25:38 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:20:31 AM
It's tragic, however this plays out. He's clearly a mess, and she was trying to provide for her kids.
Of course you always assume the best motives for the woman :lol:
:mellow:
And again, clearly you don't know me. I assume the best motives for everyone.
I am also assuming the best motives of the man, in this case. I don't think anyone set out to defraud anyone. I think that circumstances led them to a position that's pretty awful for everyone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 02:30:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.
At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.
Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.
Him losing property isn't the issue though. If he's dead then he legally doesn't exist and can't function in society. His SSN is invalid and he can't work, can't pay taxes, can't have financial interactions with banks, can't buy or rent property, can't have health care, can't sign up for any government programs, etc. How is that acceptable?
How has he been doing all that stuff in the many years since he disappeared? It doesn't seem to have bothered him much, given that he only found out about his "death" in 2005, and he was ruled "dead" in 1994.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 02:30:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 11, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
QuoteHis ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.
Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."
So, he's a deadbeat.
Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.
True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.
At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.
Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.
Him losing property isn't the issue though. If he's dead then he legally doesn't exist and can't function in society. His SSN is invalid and he can't work, can't pay taxes, can't have financial interactions with banks, can't buy or rent property, can't have health care, can't sign up for any government programs, etc. How is that acceptable?
He chose not to be part of society many years ago.
Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.
However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 11, 2013, 08:44:48 AM
He chose not to be part of society many years ago.
He managed it for 27 years. That's impressive.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:46:14 AM
Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.
However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.
Was drugs and mental issues mentioned in some other article? It does not help his case anyway.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 11, 2013, 08:44:48 AM
He chose not to be part of society many years ago.
What the individual does is irrelevant, absent conviction of a crime, the government should not be allowed to cut off a citizen from civilized society.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:46:14 AM
Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.
However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.
Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?
My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:46:14 AM
Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.
However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.
Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?
My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.
The article said he lost his social security number and driver's license. He doesn't have the money to go to federal court.
I have no idea how you go about getting a new social security number. I'm sure the government has procedures in place for victims of identity theft, but do they have them for this situation? If not I'm not confident in the flexibility of the federal bureaucracy in dealing with it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2013, 08:52:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 08:46:14 AM
Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.
However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.
Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?
My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.
The article said he lost his social security number and driver's license. He doesn't have the money to go to federal court.
I have no idea how you go about getting a new social security number. I'm sure the government has procedures in place for victims of identity theft, but do they have them for this situation? If not I'm not confident in the flexibility of the federal bureaucracy in dealing with it.
I'm willing to be the federal government would re-discover his "personhood" pretty quickly, if he set himself up as some sort of tax shelter. ;)
Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.
But who will pay for the funeral? :hmm:
As The Christ said: "let the dead bury their dead".
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.
Which begs an interesting question. Can you be sent to jail for killing someone already dead?
Quote from: Iormlund on October 11, 2013, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.
Which begs an interesting question. Can you be sent to jail for killing someone already dead?
How would you kill him?
That's another interesting question. Stake through the heart?
Beheading.
We can try both.
He should try and exploit the situation, commit a crime or two and see how quickly the bureaucracy changes its 'mind'.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the judge and all the lawyers involved executed, and then just declare him to be alive through force of arms? That's the only way you'll ever really get any justice.
I bet she nagged him to death.
I don't really see the man as all that blameworthy for not paying child support nor do I see the woman that blameworthy for realizing some eight years later after he'd been dead to the world that maybe she could file for some social security survivor benefits and get some small amount of money for her children. The guy was obviously an extreme alcoholic, while people should always pay their child support the fact is someone like that is simply unable to do so. Someone that far into addiction simply can't work, and they are probably living in abject squalor themselves--so they are not at all akin to the deadbeat dads who work and make their baby mommas go through all the hoops just to squeeze a meager amount out of them while they live fairly comfortably.
I don't see how the woman would have been likely to know he was or wasn't dead, he disappeared from the face of the Earth and they had no ongoing relationship. That's precisely why the statute exists for declaring someone dead after they've gone totally missing for a certain number of years.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2013, 05:42:36 PM
I don't really see the man as all that blameworthy for not paying child support nor do I see the woman that blameworthy for realizing some eight years later after he'd been dead to the world that maybe she could file for some social security survivor benefits and get some small amount of money for her children. The guy was obviously an extreme alcoholic, while people should always pay their child support the fact is someone like that is simply unable to do so. Someone that far into addiction simply can't work, and they are probably living in abject squalor themselves--so they are not at all akin to the deadbeat dads who work and make their baby mommas go through all the hoops just to squeeze a meager amount out of them while they live fairly comfortably.
I don't see how the woman would have been likely to know he was or wasn't dead, he disappeared from the face of the Earth and they had no ongoing relationship. That's precisely why the statute exists for declaring someone dead after they've gone totally missing for a certain number of years.
There's something to be said for this argument, plus I think the children probably benefited from not having an alcoholic father in their family life.
Otto sympathetic for the drunks. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2013, 03:12:41 AM
The fact that he's just turned up alive is going to completely screw her over. She'd owe tens of thousands to the government if he was declared alive. I can understand not wanting that to happen.
Surely not if she really believed it and tried to find out where he was?
Well, that's something to look forward to.
Assuming you are still alive.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 07:15:05 PM
Assuming you are still alive.
You may just have given him a reason to live. :hmm: